Driving Britain to ‘popular capitalism’ with social franchising co-operative model

Capitalism has for centuries been our economic doctrine as the ‘best’ system to reward individual efforts and distribute wealth. With now over 90 percent of Britain’s productive assets owned by two square miles in the City and exercerbating income inequality, it is the time to fix the system if we want a fair society for all. This is also the ‘responsible capitalism’ which the Occupy LSX campaigners ask for. Seemingly far away, the panacea for today’s predicament is, in fact, close at hand – the ‘co-operative’ model, or Rochdale Rules dating back to 1840s.

Sustainability & Innovation

In this inaugural edition of the Seymourpowell TV series, Seymourpowell's Head of Sustainability, Chris Sherwin, answers the question: "How will sustainability change our approaches to design and innovation in the future?"

I would welcome everybody who has watched this video to contribute to the online discussions in the Seymourpowell Design and Innovation Network by clicking here.

Email me at winstonkm.mark@googlemail.com

Can localised food systems be a silver bullet for some globalised humanitarian problems?

Cornucopia with which people in developed countries are endowed since mid-twentieth century results in collective complacency about food security. Along with irresistible commercial advertisements and health consultations, we have been ‘brainwashed’ to believe in the credendum of a globalised, trade-dependent food system and industrial agriculture as the solution to food demands worldwide while derogating local agricultural productions. Our global food system[1]  today is characterised by an unprecedented scale of centralisation, intensification and concentration. Its record-high food yield is supposed to suffice the mouths of six billion and, thus, make optimistic progress towards the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDG) of halving the proportion of undernourished people by 2015.[2] Nonetheless, we are even very far from the World Food Summit (WFS) target aiming to halve the number of hungry people.[3]

Financing ‘energy localism’, how does legal structure matter?

The message from the energy prices summit last October was only “check, switch and insulate”. Why not “generate”? Amid the threats of soaring energy prices and global climate change, it gives us every reason to go ahead with ‘energy localism’ – community sustainable energy projects – which can fuel local green growth. Unless you are lucky enough to have a hidden goldmine in your community, it is often the financiers, not the business angels, who can give an energy project green light.  

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 4)

The road to Qatar and beyond

We are now on a ‘climate mortgage’ to borrow from our future generations. The Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1990s was just the ‘deposit’. Kyoto II is an ‘instalment’ long overdue and the Durban deal is only part of it. The lack of quantitative emissions reduction targets year after year means that our ‘mortgage’ now is subject to ‘penalty’ or a higher ‘interest rate’ equivalent to 1-2% of the world’s GDP this year rising to 19% in 2030 (according to the EU’s report – “The Economics of Climate Change Adaptation in EU Coastal Areas”). The Durban deal this year left a lot of questions, including the extent of emissions reductions in the Kyoto Protocol’s extension period as well as the specific amounts and operation management of the Green Climate Fund, unanswered. There are, hence, numerous uncertainties looming over the carbon market and forest protection financing that are the world’s main drivers to a low-carbon economy.

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 3)

What shapes the Durban outcome

In a conference held for 36 hours longer than scheduled, the round-the-clock marathon-style negotiations culminated this agreement which is somewhat amphibolous after a close examination. Interesting is that we can see a ‘swap of roles’ between developed and developing countries in carbon emissions compared with the situation in 1997 when the Kyoto Protocol was passed. Today, ironically the reasons for developed countries asking developing ones to accept the Durban agreement is exactly what the former US President, George W. Bush, said when he refused to ratify the Protocol in 2001. After all, what are the factors shaping the Durban Package this year?

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 2)

Implications to the world’s transition to low-carbon economy

The economics of climate change or ‘climate economics’ is about how we price the world’s climate and the disasters induced by climate change in order to fit into the mainstream decision-making models. As climate change is attributable to anthropogenic carbon emissions, we have to look for ways to reduce and absorb excessive carbon dioxide on the planet. Before the technology of carbon capture and storage becomes mature, we need to attach a price to the emissions from economic activities through the creation of carbon permits for trading and to our carbon-sinking forests through financial incentives for stopping deforestation such as the UN’s REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) programme. The implications of climate deals reached in annual summits to these two ‘commodities’ do matter because they currently form the twin pillars supporting the global transition to low-carbon economy. Let us take a look at forest protection financing and carbon market development.

Decoding Durban: Deal or no Deal? Deal, for a Deal Later (Part 1)

In Durban the stunning landscape did not bless the United Nations climate change conference (COP 17) with a beautiful ending but did make again spurning escape for polluters. After an overnight’s wrangle on the very last day of ‘extra time’, it came up with a ‘compromised’ deal which was based upon a proposal by Brazil. The last-minute deal commits the European Union and a few wealthy countries to a second commitment period after the main provisions of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012; all countries to negotiating a new “[global] protocol… or outcome with legal force” effective by 2020; and developed nations to financing the Green Climate Fund (GCF) that helps developing ones with climate change adaptation and is slated to be operational by the same year. Only transitional in nature, it is a solution that seeks to fill the vacuum period before Kyoto II. But given the poor track record of previous summits, would this deal again be another ‘dud cheque’ as are the Kyoto Protocol and the Bali Roadmap? What are the implications to driving the world to a period of low-carbon growth? A closer look at this deal can tell us how many critical questions remain unanswered. It is indeed a deal studded with uncertainties.